54. The representative of the European Communities said that some of the questions raised at the present meeting had also been raised in the internal discussions that the European Communities and their member States had had in the preparation of the proposal and he accepted that there were many options open as to how to proceed. Referring in particular to the intervention by New Zealand, he was fully aware that there were also some areas where further thought was required. The relationship between dispute settlement and the administration of a register was not fully developed yet and in an embryonic stage of thinking. He was confident that the delegations present would contribute to advance that thinking and to achieve practical solutions. He did not think it appropriate to reply at the present meeting to every question raised and would limit himself, for the moment, to some systemic points that had come up repeatedly. On scope, the coverage of geographical indications for wines was relatively clear in the text of Article 23.4. As regards spirits, a high value should be attached to the Singapore Ministerial Declaration. As far as other products were concerned, there was no basis to address them at this point in time but, as his delegation had highlighted in its proposal, once a system was in place, a registration system for geographical indications for other products might also be considered. He realised that this might still be some time off and, at this stage, the discussion could only focus on whether spirits were included or not. The Council needed to reach a solution to that point. Another fundamental issue raised concerned the voluntary nature of the system. Indeed, his delegation took the view that it should be a voluntary system, but there were several degrees of voluntariness. First, would all Members be subject to this system? An ideal system would require that all Members be subject to it. Another approach would have as a consequence that everything that happened in the system was not legally binding or irrelevant to those Members not participating in it. There had also been many references to section V.3 of the proposal, under which the refusal of a registration only benefitted a Member which had opposed the registration and would not apply erga omnes. He fully appreciated that the other option could also have been chosen. However, first, a decision taken on the registrability of a geographical indication in dispute settlement or by a court would not apply erga omnes, but only inter partes. Further, some of the exceptions in the Agreement were Member-specific. For example, the question of whether a geographical indication had become a generic term was something that might be the case in one Member but not in another. Whether the word "Hoover" was a generic term for a vacuum cleaner might be decided differently per country. The system proposed by his delegation was a voluntary one and, if necessary, this could be clarified by honing the text. In relation to the intervention of Australia, he said that the notification and objection system proposed seemed perfectly in line with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and standard legal practice in WTO disputes: if a party wanted to invoke a benefit, it had to demonstrate that it met the requirement. The party which submitted a geographical indication had to prove that what it submitted was indeed a geographical indication, in the sense of the TRIPS Agreement. This was what was intended by sections I.1 and I.2 of the proposal. The next step would be for other Members, who were of the view that one of the exceptions under the TRIPS Agreement applied. Such a Member had to invoke the exception and had to substantiate the exception by proving its applicability, if it and the notifying Member were not in agreement. He agreed with the United States that both the process envisaged under Article 23.4 and the process underway for the special review under Article 24.2, albeit legally separate, in reality operated in parallel. Certainly, the Council would be able to benefit from the information gathered from the Checklist of Questions that the Council had developed for the review exercise under Article 24.2.
